-3

I wonder if:

GIVEN, a viable, working model of the universe that incorporates only Euclidian Space, and an endless sea of specially shaped sub-quanta, and waves of kinetic energy in the form of straight line loss-free collision propagation, and spherical radiation of "spin".

would be determined more likely than

CURRENT models of the universe that depend on bendable space time (a.k.a. Einsteinian Space) and "force" fields plus quarks, gluons, muons, photons, etc.

Using the principle of Occam's Razor, logic and common sense. (ie: Philosophy).

closed as unclear what you're asking by Joseph Weissman Jan 9 '16 at 16:22

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • General relativity theory is not a model to begin with, and is built using philosophy. Learn physics maybe? – sure Sep 9 '15 at 17:59
  • 1
    This is the philosophy stack right, I didn't accidentally post this under "pedantics" did I? – Alistair Riddoch Sep 10 '15 at 0:59
  • 1
    Occam's Razor and common sense are irrelevant without empirical validity, and while such empirically equivalent model is always possible for mathematical reasons, it is unlikely to be practical due to structural artificiality and computational complexities. Current models were developed exactly to be predictively viable, if physicists could keep Euclidean space and determinism they would have. So the premise goes beyond rather modest human ability to resolve counterfactuals. – Conifold Sep 10 '15 at 2:13
  • Welcome to Phil.SE! It's difficult to discern the philosophical question here; are you suggesting that physical thinking returns to atomic theory? But this is an assertion, rather than a question; and moreover is contained in the standard model - which is the standard name for the physical theory described in your second paragraph. – Mozibur Ullah Sep 10 '15 at 4:43
  • @AlistairRiddoch: if you think that doing philosophy if thinking out of any knowledge, understanding, or skills in other fields, then you would be wrong. My advice should be taken seriously: learn physics and you'll see why general relativity is a beautiful theory – sure Sep 10 '15 at 9:29
1

It depends on the notion of better.

In his papers and lectures, Chomsky talks a lot about the scientific revolution of the 17th century, see for example the first ten pages of Language and Nature. His thesis is that the philosophers and scientists of the time sought to describe reality in mechanical terms, as an intelligible machine, but that Newton's discoveries were the beginning of the end of that project; Newton's physics was considered unintelligible and occult by the mechanical philosophers.

According to chomsky, since the demise of the mechanical philosophy "the sciences postulate whatever finds a place in intelligible explanatory theory, however offensive that may be to common sense."; that is, we settled on theories that we can understand rather than a reality that we can understand.

So it seems that in that sense an explanation of reality in mechanical intelligible terms would be better than modern physics. however it seems that such an explanation is impossible, since according to Bell's inequalities, the universe is hopelessly non-local, and therefore occult or unintelligible in the sense of mechanical philosophy.

If you are interested in understanding Bell's mind blowing theorem, I recommend a book called Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity by the philosopher of science Tim Maudlin. The explanation there is a great example of the importance of philosophy of science; it is crystal clear, aqua vitae.

  • Thank you for seeing past semantics and the limitations of current physics, to accept a "given" for thought experimentation purposes, at least. I appreciate the references cited. – Alistair Riddoch Sep 13 '15 at 21:50
  • and like this quote from one of them...... In "The Meaning of Relativity", Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the representation of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis for such a theory." – Alistair Riddoch Sep 13 '15 at 21:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.